In the traditional collection of
demographic data in Latin America, it was obviously important to obtain
age/sex distributions. Such distributions are obviously important in the
planning for area such as education, healthcare, labor, pensions, etc.
More so than some other places, it was also important to collect information
about socio-economic characteristics. Why? Latin America is marked
by sharp socio-economic inequalities, whereupon social and political policies
will impact different classes in radically different ways.

Whereas the definitions of age and sex are
unambiguous, socio-economic level is much more difficult to articulate. In the USA, it is
customary to use annual household income (before taxes and including wages, tips, alimony,
interests and other sources of income) as the single variable that would best encapsulate
spending power. This is possible through a unique set of circumstances that do not
necessarily exist elsewhere (for example, income taxes are filed each year so that most
people in the USA have at least an approximate idea of their 'reported' household
incomes). In Latin America, household income is problematic due to a variety of reasons:-
hyper-inflation, non-cash and barter activities, unsteady cash flows, absence of household
financial bookkeeping, differences in costs of goods and services, as well as a general
reluctance to reveal household wealth.

In most Latin American countries,
standardized systems of socio-economic levels are in place. In a number of Latin American countries, the
definition of socio-economic level was formulated under the aegis of the national
marketing associations.Typically, these definitions were obtained
through a careful examination of a large number of variables and selecting just those
essential, non-redundant variables that convey the most information about socio-economic
well-being. The approach is necessarily reductionistic, since the objective is to ask as
few questions as necessary to determine the socio-economic level. In each country, the
selected variables are those that best reflect the social and economic realities there.
Consequently, it is expected that the definitions would be different across countries.
The differences begin with the number of socio-economic levels and continues
to the details in those definitions.

In the table below, we show the
nomenclature of the various socio-economic levels that are in used in the
Latin American countries that are currently served by IBOPE Media
Information. This is verily an 'alphabet soup' in which all manners of
alphabets, numerals and labels come into play.

Why should people care about inequality in wealth? That depends on who
you are. For example, the market for luxury goods is restricted to those
who can afford to pay; therefore, a large wealthy population would yield higher
and sustainable revenues. At a deeper level, there are also concerns based
upon reasons of moral and social justice. If inequality in wealth were
solely the consequences of personal choices about work, effort and savings, then
people are getting what they desire and deserve. But if wealth inequality
is due either to the legacy of historical problems or contemporary corruption
and lack of transparency, then this becomes a major social and political
problem.

In the history of Latin America, it is possible to identify many instances of
wealth inequality as being caused by foreign hegemonists, multinational
corporations, dictators and oligarchies. In more recent history, though,
Latin American countries have been largely democratically elected, and government policies
seemed to cater squarely to the median voter and not to a small elite ---
committing to universal education and healthcare, providing job training
programs, creating environments that attract foreign investments, imposing
progressive taxation, stabilizing currencies, imposing price controls,
privatizating large government-owned enterprises, etc. Yet the irony is that the inequality in wealth has
worsened during this period. It would seem that good intentions alone may not be enough to bring about social
justice. Alternately, the rich and powerful are more insidious than we
think ...